Or, y'know, you could make judgements on how good players were based on how they performed in their eras against what was put in front of them.

Especially since the entire discussion is a theoretical abstraction and not 'empiric' in the slightest. It's not rocket science.

By the same argument, one could say Wasim Jaffer should be considered a great. He barely got a chance in test cricket, has been consistently bashing up stunning amounts of runs in FC cricket and thus 'evaluated by how they performed against what was put in front of them'.

Its well known that Hobbs and Sutcliffe hardly ever faced a real fast bowler. Their test career has them opening more often than not against spinners and people who bowled at Hansie Cronje speed. Sure, they did excellently against them and the few occasional fast bowlers bowling to stumps they faced too. But that doesnt make a genuine case of them opening against 3 bowlers bowling 90mph who are going to try to knock their heads off.

They were great in their era but empirically, fall short of making a case on why they would succeed in this era, except for the 'magic of adaptability' argument to augument their cases.

I evaluate batsmen for what they are. If Hobbs played cover drives with both feet in the air (which I've seen footage of), I have no reason to conclude that he would simply, by default, adapt to keeping his feet strictly attached to terra ferma against other bowlers. I'd rather see what empiric skills one has and compare them, than indulge in the 'X would've adapted' type of legacy-pacifying ideas that have little or no merit in reality.

As opposed the idea of digging up corpses to play a game of cross-era cricket whereby everyone is somehow magically not only alive but at the peak of the cricketing powers, which has very real and practical applications in our universe.

I'm open to the idea that Hobbs would be a worse batsman than Stuart Broad if he played in the modern era or even the idea that if we actually sent Stuart Broad back in time even further than that he'd be the best batsman of the 19th century, but ultimately I just couldn't care less about that when rating players. Hobbs wasn't tasked with developing a way of combating bowling that wouldn't exist for 70 years; I can't imagine his captain would've been too pleaseed if Sir Jack informed him he was making changes to his technique because, while they'd result in him scoring less runs in reality, they'd make him much better equipped to deal with theoretical bowling years after he died and enhance his legacy. Hobbs was tasked with scoring runs against the bowling he actually faced and he should be judged on his ability to do that relative to his peers.

I rate Hobbs highly not because I necessarily believe it's a given he'd adapt his skills to the modern era if he was born later, but because that sort of comparison doesn't mean anything in reality. Hobbs's ability to face Marshall is entirely irrelevant to his historical standing as a batsman for the same reason that my uncle isn't regarded as a greater astronomy than Aristotle because he'd do a better job of finishing a 2014 Year 11 Science quiz.

Hobbs was tasked with scoring runs against the bowling he actually faced and he should be judged on his ability to do that relative to his peers.

I rate Hobbs highly not because I necessarily believe it's a given he'd adapt his skills to the modern era if he was born later, but because that sort of comparison doesn't mean anything in reality.

Neither does rating Hobbs highly because of his relative performance amongst his peers. The standards were worse back then, hence his performance against his peers can't be meaningfully used to judge his overall standing as a batsmen across eras - just as you can't say a good club cricketer will be an equally good test cricketer. The only way the 'relative performance amongst peers' argument can be used as a meaningful comparison is if you believe the standards were the same. But there are so many points to provide evidence against that.

The only way the 'relative performance amongst peers' argument can be used as a meaningful comparison is if you believe the standards were the same.

This suggests that the only "meaningful" measure of success is absolute performance. Don't you think winning matches is meaningful?

Would you rather Australia win the 3rd Test in SA by batting well against Steyn and Philander on modern South African pitches, or would you not care about how many runs were scored, provided Australia bat in such a method that they could use to score runs on a sticky Old Trafford wicket in 1968?

People here are such sticks-in-the-mud... They already have a preconceived image in their mind as to what a great batsman should be and are unwilling to accept guys like Sehwag who bring something different to the table, play in an audacious manner and still manages to have an output comparable to the more conventional batsmen. Players like Sehwag , Pietersen, etc may not be as consistent as the generally accepted great batsmen but have qualities which many great batsmen can't hope to match. Somehow this is considered completely irrelevant because they either average a few points lower or get out in ways that look bad.

Yes, thankyou, great post, not just batsmen either, I've had plenty of debates regarding a certain Sri Lankan spin bowler on here where I can't help but wonder if their opinion was formed by simply evaluating his action and style rather than examining his output and results.

As opposed the idea of digging up corpses to play a game of cross-era cricket whereby everyone is somehow magically not only alive but at the peak of the cricketing powers, which has very real and practical applications in our universe.

I'm open to the idea that Hobbs would be a worse batsman than Stuart Broad if he played in the modern era or even the idea that if we actually sent Stuart Broad back in time even further than that he'd be the best batsman of the 19th century, but ultimately I just couldn't care less about that when rating players. Hobbs wasn't tasked with developing a way of combating bowling that wouldn't exist for 70 years; I can't imagine his captain would've been too pleaseed if Sir Jack informed him he was making changes to his technique because, while they'd result in him scoring less runs in reality, they'd make him much better equipped to deal with theoretical bowling years after he died and enhance his legacy. Hobbs was tasked with scoring runs against the bowling he actually faced and he should be judged on his ability to do that relative to his peers.

I rate Hobbs highly not because I necessarily believe it's a given he'd adapt his skills to the modern era if he was born later, but because that sort of comparison doesn't mean anything in reality. Hobbs's ability to face Marshall is entirely irrelevant to his historical standing as a batsman for the same reason that my uncle isn't regarded as a greater astronomy than Aristotle because he'd do a better job of finishing a 2014 Year 11 Science quiz.

if your idea of the best team is one purely derived from historicity, ie, how much they dominated their times, empiric skills be damned, why not include people prior to Grace who also dominated in the underarm era ?
If you argue that well, underarm era is too different a game, that same argument is valid for Hobbs when compared to the modern game.

the best team is self explanatory: its about empiric greatness, even if such empiricism is hard to precisely justify, it doesnt make the necessary criteria of empiric excellence irrelevant. What you are talking about, more aptly fits the 'greatest stalwarts XI', where one expects to find the likes of Grace, Spofforth, Barnes, etc.

(PS: i think you meant Archimedes. aristotle was a philosopher, Archimedes was a scientist/engineer).

PPS: If the issue of 'greatest scientists ever' is actually based on empiric scientific knowledge, aka, the greatest analytic skills in science along with the greatest compendium of knowledge, Issac Newton does not make the cut.I'd take me over Newton, since Newton knew squat about advanced Calculus (he invented the basics) or material science. If the issue is of 'the most influential/stalwart scientists ever', then Newton is one of the first names in history to be put down.

I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum... And I'm all out of bubblegum.

Posts

16,219

Originally Posted by Muloghonto

PPS: If the issue of 'greatest scientists ever' is actually based on empiric scientific knowledge, aka, the greatest analytic skills in science along with the greatest compendium of knowledge, Issac Newton does not make the cut.I'd take me over Newton, since Newton knew squat about advanced Calculus (he invented the basics) or material science. If the issue is of 'the most influential/stalwart scientists ever', then Newton is one of the first names in history to be put down.

Plus, Newton painted his walls with mercury based paint, slowly killing himself. If he was a half decent scientist he would have known the folly of his redecorating regime and would have instead confirmed for me whether Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead.

>>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation SocietySupporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.

if your idea of the best team is one purely derived from historicity, ie, how much they dominated their times, empiric skills be damned, why not include people prior to Grace who also dominated in the underarm era ?
If you argue that well, underarm era is too different a game, that same argument is valid for Hobbs when compared to the modern game.

I would do if I knew more about cricket from those times; sadly I don't. I've argued in the past that William Lillywhite and Alfred Mynn should be considered as all-time greats of the game and if I knew more about some of the other pre-Test players I might include them in my All-Time World XI.

This suggests that the only "meaningful" measure of success is absolute performance. Don't you think winning matches is meaningful?

Would you rather Australia win the 3rd Test in SA by batting well against Steyn and Philander on modern South African pitches, or would you not care about how many runs were scored, provided Australia bat in such a method that they could use to score runs on a sticky Old Trafford wicket in 1968?

Na, your misconstruing what I'm saying. How players perform relative to their peers is fine as a measure of success but only providing the analysis is confined within the era, or at least one where the standards were the same/similar. As soon as the standards are different by a significant amount, which they are between e.g. early 1900's cricket and now, you can't make extrapolations about the quality of players between those eras. It is no different in concept to trying to rank players based on performance amongst their peers in club cricket to how they would go in test cricket - you can make some very vague, educated guesses that so-and-so will probably be a good test player, but it's near impossible to classify them with a higher degree of accuracy than that. Because the game has progressed, however, I do think you can say basically any player from a modern era would do exceptionally well if they played in a much earlier one - what's that mean though? Absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned, because modern players have trained with all of the advantages that come with the era, so it's a pointless comparison.